I have just been reading an article on deposit schemes legislation (which we helped produce) and despite almost three years of reading sections 212 to 215 Housing Act 2004, I think I may have just found a flaw in the argument that helps landlords about late protection which I had not (and many other practitioners had not) considered.

We have always held the view that if a landlord protects a deposit and gives the prescribed information, or repays the full deposit back prior to any hearing regarding the matter albeit after 14 days, the landlord will escape penalty (see Draycott v Hannells and Harvey v Bamforth for example).

However, I was just reading again the case Seghier v Rollings Bow County Court 6 March 2009 and it dawned on me is this principle of avoiding compensation correct?

The reason ... Please login or signup to continue reading this content

Similar posts you may like